A  FORGOTTEN  DUEL 


UC-NRLF 


WALTER    AUSTIN 


B    3    3DT 


A  FORGOTTEN  DUEL 


WILLIAM    AUSTIN. 


A  FORGOTTEN  DUEL 


Fought  in  Rhode  Island  between  William 
Austin,  of  Charlestown,  and  James  Hen 
derson  Elliot,  of  Boston,  March  31,  1806 


BY 

WALTER  AUSTIN 


PRIVATELY   PRINTED 

1914 


TO 

jBRarp  Slltot  Corop, 

GRANDDAUGHTER    OF    GENERAL    SIMON    ELLIOT, 
THIS    BOOK    IS    RESPECTFULLY    DEDICATED    BY 

WALTER   AUSTIN, 
GRANDSON   OF   WILLIAM    AUSTIN 


I  became  sufficiently  interested  to  pursue  the 
subject  further,  and  gathered  the  material 
forming  the  substance  of  this  article,  hoping 
it  might  be  of  interest  to  the  descendants  of 
the  principals. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  record  my  obligation  to 
Miss  Mary  Elliot  Torrey,  granddaughter  of 
Major  General  Simon  Elliot,  for  facts  con 
cerning  the  life  of  General  Elliot  and  his  son, 
James  Henderson  Elliot,  and  for  kindly  al 
lowing  me  to  publish  their  portraits  in  this 
article. 

I  also  thank  Charles  M.  Cabot,  Esq.,  for 
allowing  me  to  quote  from  the  "  Autobi 
ographical  Sketch  and  Family  Reminis 
cences/'  written  by  his  father,  James  Elliot 
Cabot,  a  grandnephew  of  General  Elliot. 

W.  A. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

PREFACE   7 

I.    THE  PRINCIPALS  AND  THEIR  SECONDS        ...  13 
II.    THE  COURT  MARTIAL  OF  CAPTAIN  JOSEPH  LORING, 

JUNIOR 29 

III.  THE   "DECIUS"    ARTICLE 34 

IV.  THE  CHALLENGE  AND  ACCEPTANCE     ....  44 
V.    TERMS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  DUEL         .               .51 

VI.    THE   DUEL 56 

APPENDIX  A 61 

APPENDIX  B 64 

APPENDIX  C 64 

APPENDIX  D 65 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


WILLIAM  AUSTIN      .... 
GENERAL  SIMON  ELLIOT  . 
JAMES  HENDERSON  ELLIOT 
AUSTIN'S  LETTER  TO  SUMNER 
TERMS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  DUEL 
PLAN  OF  THE  DUEL 


PAGE 

Frontispiece 
.     18 

.      21 

•  44 

•  51 
56 


A  Forgotten  Duel 


The  Principals  and  their  Seconds 

THE  duel  between  William  Austin  and 
James  Henderson  Elliot  was  fought  March 
31,  1806,  two  years  after  the  memorable  Ham 
ilton-Burr  duel.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  the  period  between  the  beginning  of  the 
century  and  the  ending  of  the  War  of  1812- 
1815  was  one  of  violent  political  passions  and 
prejudices.  Party  feeling  ran  high  as  it  never 
did  before  or  since  in  this  country,  and  the 
many  duels  fought  in  this  period  usually  orig 
inated  from  some  political  quarrel.  Politics 
was  also  the  origin  of  the  Austin-Elliot  duel. 
Both  were  young  men,  —  William  Austin,  a 
Democrat,  28  years  of  age,  and  James  Hen 
derson  Elliot,  a  Federalist,  but  little  past  his 
majority.  The  latter  was  the  challenger,  ta 
king  up  the  cudgels  for  his  father,  Major 
General  Simon  Elliot,  who,  he  fancied,  had 
been  grievously  wronged  by  young  Austin  in 
[13] 


a  newspaper  article  signed  "  Decius."  1  Be 
fore  considering  the  cause  and  merits  of  the 
controversy  let  us  see  briefly  who  the  princi 
pals  and  their  seconds  were. 

William  Austin,  born  March  2,  1778,  was 
the  son  of  Nathaniel  Austin  of  Charlestown, 
Massachusetts,  —  of  the  .Austin  family  that 
settled  in  Charlestown  in  1638,  —  and  of 
Margaret  Rand,  a  sister  of  Dr.  Isaac  Rand, 
well  spoken  of  by  Lorenzo  Sabine  in  the 
"  Biographical  Sketches  of  American  Loyal 
ists."  Graduating  from  Harvard  College  in 
1798,  a  few  years  later  he  took  up  law  as  a 
profession.  In  1799  he  was  appointed  school 
master  and  chaplain  in  the  Navy,  being,  I 
believe,  the  first  commissioned  chaplain  in  the 
service.  In  1803  he  studied  law  at  Lincoln's 
Inn,  London,  returning  eighteen  months  later 
to  Charlestown  to  practise  his  profession. 
Politics  early  interested  him,  and  later  he 
represented  Charlestown  as  a  Democrat  in  the 
lower  branch  of  the  state  legislature  and  the 
County  of  Middlesex  in  the  Senate.  I  can 
give  no  better  description  of  Mr.  Austin  than 
that  given  by  his  classmate,  Sidney  Willard, 
in  "  Memories  of  Youth  and  Manhood." 
Mr.  Willard  says:  — 

1  Given  in  full  in  Chap.  III. 


"  At  no  time,  so  far  as  I  can  remember,  did 
Mr.  Austin  while  at  college  show  any  desire 
to  excel  in  the  prescribed  studies,  being  doubt 
less  of  the  opinion  that  one  has  as  good  a  right 
of  choice  in  the  studies  he  shall  pursue  as  in 
the  companions  with  whom  he  shall  choose 
to  associate.  Apart  from  this,  which  was  un 
just  to  himself,  he  employed  much  of  his  time 
usefully,  and  was  among  the  most  distin 
guished  belle-lettrists  (if  I  may  use  a  word  of 
Coleridge's  coining)  of  his  class,  and  wrote 
with  far  more  facility  and  sprightliness  than 
the  generality  of  its  members.  Soon  after  he 
received  his  degree  he  went  to  England  as 
a  literary  amateur  and  observer,  and  wrote 
many  letters  home,  which  after  his  return  he 
collected  and  published  in  a  volume.  They 
embrace  a  variety  of  topics,  and  among  them 
descriptions  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
Parliamentary  speakers  at  the  close  of  the  last 
and  the  beginning  of  the  present  century, 
which  form  an  interesting  part  of  the  book. 
For  his  professional  life  he  studied  law,  and 
practised  in  this  profession  as  an  attorney, 
counsellor,  and  advocate.  His  ideas  indeed 
were  quick  and  often  brilliant,  but  his  tem 
perament  was  impulsive,  and  he  failed  in  that 
degree  of  illustrative  amplification  and  that 
continuity  of  thought  which  are  necessary  to 
lead  common  minds  to  the  desired  conclusion. 
As  a  companion  he  was  entertaining  and  in 
structive,  —  one  whom  it  was  pleasing  to  meet 
even  casually  in  the  street;  for  there  was  al 
ways  something  uppermost  in  his  mind,  and 
one  might  perceive  in  his  approach  that  he 


had  something  to  say,  and  he  said  it  very 
abruptly  perhaps,  and  sometimes  it  was  very 
odd,  but  not  infrequently  suggestive  of  more 
than  was  said.  While  in  active  life  Austin 
belonged  to  the  Democratic  party,  and  for 
two  years,  beginning  in  May,  1822,  he  was  a 
member  of  the  Massachusetts  Senate  for  the 
County  of  Middlesex.  It  was  a  time  when 
party  politics  interfered  little  with  legislation. 
He  was  also  in  1820  a  delegate  from  Charles- 
town  to  the  Convention  for  revising  the  Con 
stitution  of  Massachusetts,  and  upon  some  of 
the  proposed  amendments  he  took  an  active 
part  in  the  debates.  In  the  debate  concerning 
the  government  of  Harvard  College  he  mani 
fested  a  liberal  spirit.  With  his  usual  frank 
ness  he  acknowledged  that  he  had  formerly 
entertained  prejudices,  but  they  had  long 
since  been  dissipated.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  there  were  eight  members  of  the  class 
graduated  at  Harvard  College  in  1798  who 
were  members  of  this  Convention;  namely, 
John  Abbot,  William  Austin,  Samuel  P.  P. 
Fay,  Isaac  Fiske,  Henry  Gardner,  Joseph 
Story,  Richard  Sullivan,  and  Joseph  Tucker- 
man. 

"  Though  Austin  wrote  with  facility  from 
a  mind  well  stored  I  am  not  aware  that  he 
contributed  largely  to  the  literature  of  his 
times.  His  story  of  Peter  Rugg,  published 
in  the  Galaxy  (a  paper  conducted  by  Joseph 
T.  Buckingham),  had  great  celebrity  and  was 
copied  in  many  newspapers  and  miscellane 
ous  journals.  It  is  a  story  unsurpassed  in  its 
kind  and  so  well  and  consistently  sustained 

[16] 


that  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  follow  the  hero 
in  his  perpetual  motion  with  a  feeling  of  sym 
pathy  and  anxiety  for  his  fate. 

"  I  have  omitted  to  mention  in  its  proper 
place  what  I  here  add;  namely,  that  Austin 
was  elected  at  the  usual  time  a  member  of  the 
Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society,  but  did  not  accept, 
declaring  his  determination  not  to  belong  to 
any  secret  society." 

"  What  is  said  of  Mr.  Austin  as  an  advo 
cate  is  partially  true.  He  could  make  a  close 
and  able  argument,  but  I  think  that  from  the 
bent  and  formation  of  his  mind,  unless  he 
thought  his  client  had  a  just  cause  he  could 
not  with  energy  enforce  his  arguments.  He 
was,  however,  a  most  faithful  counsellor,  and 
when  he  officiated  on  trials  as  a  justice  for  the 
County  of  Middlesex,  all  the  Boston  Bar, 
with  scarcely  an  exception,  brought  their 
Middlesex  actions  to  'his  Court"  1 

Though  a  lawyer  Austin  "  appears  to  have 
been  as  deeply  interested  in  his  avocations  as 
in  his  vocation,  and  foremost  among  these 
was  the  writing  of  books."  2  Among  the  pub 
lications  bearing  his  name  were  "  Letters 
from  London,"  in  Boston,  1804;  the  essay 
on  "  The  Human  Character  of  Jesus  Christ," 
in  Boston,  1807;  "  Peter  Rugg,  the  Missing 
Man,"  in  the  New  England  Galaxy  for  Sept. 

1  Biographical  Sketch,  by  his  son,  James  Walker  Austin. 

2  Hamilton  W.  Mabie,  in  "  Stories  New  and  Old " ;    Mac- 
millan  Co.,  1908. 

[17] 


io,  1824;  the  "Sufferings  of  a  Country 
Schoolmaster,"  in  the  New  England  Galaxy, 
July  8,  1825;  "The  late  Joseph  Natter- 
strom,"  in  the  New  England  Magazine,  July, 
1831;  "The  Man  with  the  Cloaks/'  in  the 
American  Monthly  Magazine,  Jan.,  1836; 
and  "  Martha  Gardner,"  in  the  American 
Monthly  Magazine,  Dec.,  1837.  The  story  of 
"  Peter  Rugg "  especially  gained  Austin 
much  popularity,  and  the  editor  of  Bucking 
ham's  New  England  Galaxy  says  of  it:  "  This 
article  was  reprinted  in  other  papers  and 
books,  and  read  more  than  any  newspaper 
communication  that  has  fallen  within  my 
knowledge."  The  high  character  of  Austin's 
work  was  recognized  by  one  of  the  foremost 
of  American  critics,  a  scholar  well  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  American  literature,  Colo 
nel  Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson.  In  an 
essay  contributed  to  the  Independent,  March 
29,  1888,  Colonel  Higginson  speaks  of  Will 
iam  Austin  as  "  A  precursor  of  Hawthorne." 
Austin  died  in  Charlestown,  June  27,  I84I.1 

General  Simon  Elliot,  to  whom  the  "  De- 
cius "    newspaper    communication    was    ad- 


1  For  a  more  complete  account  of  his  life,  see  "  Literary 
Papers  of  William  Austin,  with  a  Biographical  Sketch  by  his 
son,  James  Walker  Austin,"  published  by  Little,  Brown  & 
Co.,  Boston,  1890. 

[18] 


GENERAL    SIMON    ELLIOT. 
(From  the  painting  by  Chester  Harding.) 


dressed,  was  born  Feb.  22,  1762,*  and  died  in 
1831.  He  was  the  son  of  Simon  Elliot  and 
Sarah  Wilson  Elliot.  General  Elliot  was 
much  interested  in  military  matters,  being 
Lieutenant  Colonel  of  the  First  Corps  of 
Boston  Cadets  in  1795,  and  the  following 
year  commissioned  a  Major  General  in  the 
Massachusetts  militia,  holding  this  position 
for  several  years.  His  business  was  that  of 
a  merchant  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
paper  and  snuff.2  In  the  latter  part  of  his  life 
General  Elliot  lived  in  Brookline.  He  was 
married  to  Miss  Eliza  Barnard  and  had  two 
children,  James  Henderson  Elliot,  who  died 
in  1808,  and  Elizabeth  Elliot,  the  mother  of 
Mary  Elliot  Torrey.  Elizabeth  Elliot  mar 
ried  Charles  Torrey  in  1823.  For  facts  con 
cerning  General  Elliot's  life  and  character  I 
quote  his  granddaughter,  Mary  Elliot  Tor 
rey,  and  his  grandnephew,  James  Elliot 
Cabot.  Miss  Torrey  says: 

"  Of  course  all  I  know  with  regard  to  him 
was  from  hearsay,  as  he  died  before  I  was 
born;  but  my  mother  (General  Elliot's 

1  From     Simon     Elliot's     Bible.       See     "  Autobiographical 
Sketch  and   Family  Reminiscences,"  by  James   Elliot   Cabot 
(grandnephew    of    General    Elliot    and    named    after   James 
Henderson   Elliot)  ;    privately  printed  at  Boston,    1904. 

2  From  Boston  Directory,   1806 :  "  Simon  Elliot,  Paper  and 
snuff  store,  51  State  St.     House  7  Federal  St." 

[19] 


daughter)  talked  constantly  of  him,  and  his 
name  was  a  byword  in  our  family.  I  have 
a  painting  of  him  by  Chester  Harding,  and 
also  a  painting  of  his  son,  James  Henderson 
Elliot,  by  Gilbert  Stuart." 

James  Elliot  Cabot  writes  this  of  his  grand- 
uncle,  General  Elliot:1 

"  Uncle  Simon  Elliot,  my  mother's  uncle, 
who  lived  with  us  in  the  Nahant  house,  —  a 
gray-haired,  rosy  old  gentleman,  of  whom  we 
children  were  very  fond.  He  had  been  a 
Brigadier  General  of  Militia;2  and  he  and 
grandfather  Perkins3  (Colonel  of  the  Ca 
dets)  used,  my  mother  afterwards  told  me, 
to  spend  much  time  in  military  manoeuvres 
carried  on  with  blocks  of  wood.  .  .  . 

"  Uncle  Elliot  was  like  his  mother  in  dis 
position.  He  made  unfortunate  investments 
and  lost  his  money.  His  property  was  sold  — 
most  of  it  real  estate.  He  retired  to  Brook- 
line,  and  built  the  house  where  Mrs.  Sullivan 
Warren  lives.  .  .  . 

"  Uncle  Elliot  had  heart  disease  in  the  lat 
ter  part  of  his  life  and  died  of  it.  He  used 
to  like  to  stay  with  us  at  Nahant,  and  we 
liked  to  have  him.  When  he  failed  in  busi 
ness,  father  bought  the  Newton  place,  and 
allowed  him  to  live  there.  One  day,  in  cross 
ing  the  foot-bridge,  he  was  seized  with  some 
affection  of  the  heart  from  which  he  never 

1  Autobiographical  Sketch;    before  referred  to. 
JHe  was  a  Major  General. 
'Thomas  Handasyd  Perkins. 

[20] 


JAMES    HENDERSON    ELLIOT. 
(From  the  painting  by   Gilbert  Stuart.) 


recovered,  though  Dr.  Warren  used  to  seton 
and  blister  him  for  it.  Father  built  the  house 
in  Brookline  for  him,  —  as  his  wife  was  dead 
and  he  required  careful  nursing.  .  .  .  When 
our  house  at  Nahant  was  built,  he  and  Eliza 
beth  used  to  pass  their  summers  with  us.  He 
would  sit  all  day  on  the  piazza,  with  his  tele 
scope." 

The  following  is  an  obituary  notice, 
printed  at  the  time  of  General  Elliot's  death 
in  1831 : 

"  On  Monday  morning  at  his  residence  in 
Brookline,  General  Simon  Elliot,  in  his  yoth 
year,  a  gentleman  whose  name  has  been  long 
familiar  and  endeared  to  this  community  by 
the  high  and  honorable  integrity  and  attract 
ive  suavity  with  which  he  discharged  the 
duties  of  both  civil  and  military  offices  com 
mitted  to  him.  The  impulses  of  his  heart 
were  warm  and  kind  as  long  as  it  continued 
to  beat.  He  sustained  an  illness  of  many  years 
and  knew  himself  hourly  to  be  in  danger  of 
instant  death  with  a  calmness  and  patience 
which  was  most  soothing  to  those  who 
watched  over  him.  The  strongest  feature 
perhaps  of  his  character,  his  earnest  desire 
to  give  pleasure  to  others,  was  as  conspicuous 
in  the  retirement  of  his  chamber  and  the  suf 
fering  of  sickness  as  in  the  days  when  health 
and  office  gave  him  a  wider  sphere." 

James  Henderson  Elliot,  the  only  son  of 
General  Simon  Elliot,  and  one  of  the  princi- 

[21] 


pals  in  the  duel,  was  born  in  Boston,  July  n, 
1782,  and  died  in  Boston,  April  20,  1808; 1  — 
therefore  at  the  date  of  the  duel  he  must  have 
been  twenty-three  years  of  age.  He  gradu 
ated  from  Harvard  University  in  1802,  re 
ceiving  his  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  in  1805; 
and  Bowdoin  College  conferred  the  same  de 
gree  upon  him  in  i8o6.2  In  1805  he  finished 
his  professional  studies  for  the  law,  and  was 
admitted  a  member  of  the  bar.  It  is  likely 
that  ill  health  prevented  his  practising  his 
profession  to  much  of  an  extent.  Like  his 
father  he  was  interested  in  a  military  life,  at 
the  time  of  his  death  being  an  aide  de  camp 
to  his  father,  with  the  rank  of  Major,  in  the 
First  Division  of  the  Militia  of  the  Common 
wealth. 

Major  Elliot  was  a  charming  man,  both  in 
person  and  manners,  of  a  highly  cultivated 
taste,  and  generally  liked  by  all  who  knew 
him.  In  James  Elliot  Cabot's  Autobiograph 
ical  Sketch,  referred  to  before,  are  several 
references  to  him.  Mr.  Cabot,  quoting  his 
mother,  Mrs.  Samuel  Cabot,  whose  mother 
was  General  Simon  Elliot's  sister,  says:3 


1  Harvard  University  records. 

'Harvard  University  records.     See  also  Appendix  B. 
""Notes  of  conversations  with  Eliza  Cabot   (Mrs.  Samuel 
Cabot),  written  down  by  her  son,  J.  E.  C,"  at  page  63. 

[22] 


"  James  Elliot,  for  whom  you  were  named, 
was  a  handsome  man  of  very  pleasing  man 
ners.  He  died  when  I  was  a  young  girl.  He 
was  a  free  liver,  but  not  in  dissipated  habits. 
Did  not  amuse  himself  with  mischief  in  the 
cold-hearted  way  of  some  of  his  companions. 
He  was  a  great  crony  of  Harry  Cabot's." 

Mrs.  Cabot  then  goes  on  and  relates  some 
of  the  pranks  and  amusing  escapades  of 
"  James  Elliot,"  as  she  calls  him,  during  his 
college  life. 

When  young  Elliot  died  in  1808,  the  Bos 
ton  Gazette  of  April  2^th  of  that  year  gave 
this  obituary  notice  of  him,  —  the  completes! 
sketch  of  his  character  and  life  now  extant: 

"  On  Thursday  we  performed  the  painful 
duty  of  announcing  the  death  of  the  deeply 
lamented  Maj.  James  Henderson  Elliot,  the 
only  son  of  Maj.  Gen.  Simon  Elliot  of  this 
town.  His  remains  were  entombed  on  Satur 
day  with  military  honors  amid  an  immense 
concourse  of  spectators.  The  procession 
moved  from  the  house  of  the  deceased's  father 
in  Federal  Street,  down  Milk  Street,  through 
Kilby,  up  State  Street,  Cornhill  and  Marl- 
borough  Street,  through  Frog  Lane,  to 
the  Common  burying  ground  and  family 
vault.  .  .  . 

"  When  an  individual,  undistinguished 
from  the  multitude,  passes  from  the  stage  of 

[23] 


action,  it  is  an  event,  which  from  its  fre 
quency,  excites  only  the  sympathies  of  his 
domestic  circle;  for  the  public  has  no  hopes 
and  little  interest  in  such  a  being.  But  when 
one,  just  stepping  on  the  threshold  of  life, 
possessed  of  every  charm  in  person  and  man 
ners  and  every  qualification  of  mind  and  un 
derstanding  which  could  gratify  the  pride  of 
his  family  and  rivet  the  attachment  of  his 
friends,  surrounded  with  every  circumstance 
which  could  brighten  hope,  and  endowed 
with  powers  which  might  have  rendered  him 
splendidly  useful  in  any  civil  or  military 
capacity,  is  removed  from  terrestrial  exist 
ence,  it  excites  no  vulgar  sorrow,  no  common 
regret,  but  is  a  subject  of  deep  and  general 
concern.  Such  men  are  not  born  for  them 
selves;  they  are  the  property  of  their  country, 
and  in  times  of  danger  its  last  and  best 
hope.  .  .  . 

"  Major  Elliot  had  entered  his  twenty-sixth 
year.  He  was  early  designed  for  public  life, 
and  his  education  was  directed  to  that  end. 
He  received  a  Master's  degree  from  Harvard 
University  in  1805,  at  which  time  he  also  com 
pleted  his  professional  studies  under  the  pres 
ent  Chief  Justice  of  this  Commonwealth. 
While  a  student  he  was  distinguished  for  the 
finest  person,  as  the  best  bred  gentleman,  and 
the  most  accomplished  orator  among  his  con 
temporaries. 

"  Soon  after  Major  E.  was  admitted  to  the 
bar  he  was  seized  with  a  pulmonary  com 
plaint  which  rendered  it  advisable  to  essay, 
for  a  winter's  residence,  a  more  genial  cli- 

[24] 


mate.  This  afforded  temporary  relief,  but 
with  returning  winter  his  disease  returned 
with  augmented  violence,  and  has  removed 
him,  as  we  confidently  trust,  *  to  another  and 
a  better  world.'  His  face  was  of  the  Roman 
cast,  strongly  marked  and  commandingly 
beautiful;  his  person  was  tall  and  elegant, 
and  his  manners  polished  and  graceful;  his 
taste  was  highly  cultivated;  he  had  treasured 
up  much  general  information  from  miscella 
neous  and  desultory  reading  and  his  collo 
quial  powers  were  unusually  happy.  He  was 
generous,  brave,  and  magnanimous;  he  had 
nothing  in  his  composition  sordid,  low  or 
popular;  there  was  nothing  in  him,  which 
the  great,  vulgar,  or  the  small,  could  estimate. 
He  loved  virtue  and  admired  greatness.  As 
he  had  lived  without  guile  in  his  mouth  or 
malice  in  his  heart,  he  feared  not  to  die. 
Nothing  but  disgrace  and  dishonour  had  any 
terrors  for  his  mind.  In  his  religious  opinions 
there  was  no  intolerance.  .  .  .  His  loss  to  his 
family  is  irreparable;  and  the  breach  occa 
sioned  by  his  death  in  the  circle  of  friendship 
will  not  be  soon  healed  —  but  alas !  he  is  gone 
forever." 

Among  those  in  the  procession  (which  was 
headed  by  the  First  Corps  of  Cadets)  were 
the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  and 
Generals  Winslow,  Gardner,  Donnison,  and 
Davis,  and  other  staff  and  field  officers  of 
the  First  Division.  The  funeral  services 


were  held  "  at  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ghanning's 
Meeting  House,  on  Federal  Street."  l 

Charles  Pinckney  Sumner  was  Austin's 
second  in  the  duel.  He  was  the  father  of 
Charles  Sumner,  afterwards  distinguished  as 
Senator  from  Massachusetts.  Mr.  Sumner 
was  born  in  Milton  in  1776,  and  graduated 
from  Harvard  College  in  1796.  A  lawyer 
by  profession,  he  early  attached  himself  to  the 
Democratic  party,  thus  creating  another  bond 
of  sympathy  between  himself  and  William 
Austin.  In  1825  Gov.  Lincoln  appointed 
him  to  the  position  of  Sheriff  of  the  County 
of  Suffolk,  which  he  retained  until  his  death 
in  1839.  The  Anti-Masonic  candidacy  for 
Governorship  of  the  State  and  the  Mayoralty 
of  Boston  were  both  offered  him  and  de 
clined.  Mr.  Sumner  seemed  always  to  have 
regretted  his  part  in  the  Austin-Elliot  duel. 
James  Spear  Loring  in  "  The  Hundred  Bos 
ton  Orators,"  published  in  1852,  in  speaking 
of  Sumner's  connection  with  the  duel,  says: 
"  Mr.  Sumner  deeply  regretted  having  taken 
a  part  in  this  conflict,  and  the  subject  was 
unknown  to  his  children  until  after  his 
decease." 

Henry  Sargent,  Elliot's  second  in  the  duel, 

1  Columbian  Centinel,  April  23,  1808. 

[26] 


was  born  in  1770  and  died  in  Boston,  Febru 
ary  21,  1845.  He  was  an  artist  and  studied 
in  England  under  Sir  Benjamin  West.1  In 
the  Boston  Directory  of  1806,  the  year  of  the 
duel,  his  occupation  is  given  as  that  of  a 
"  Portrait  painter,  i  School  St."  His  best 
known  painting  is  that  of  the  "  Landing  of 
the  Pilgrims,"  now  in  Plymouth.  Daniel 
Sargent,  his  father,  in  1797  "  removed  to  a 
large  and  splendid  mansion  at  the  corner  of 
Essex  and  Lincoln  Streets."  2  It  was  in  this 
house  that  Henry  Sargent  lived  at  the  time 
of  the  duel.3  John  Sargent,  a  brother,  was 
an  aide  to  General  Simon  Elliot,  and  another 
brother,  Lucius  Manlius  Sargent,  was  the 
author  of  "  The  Temperance  Tales." 

In  "  Reminiscences  of  Lucius  Manlius 
Sargent,"  by  John  Hannibal  Sheppard,  Bos 
ton,  1871,  is  this  brief  sketch  of  Henry  Sar 
gent's  life: 

"  Henry  Sargent  was  bapt.  Nov.  25,  1770; 
died  at  his  home  in  Franklin  Place,  Feb.  21, 
1845,  aged  74;  m.  Hannah,  dau.  of  Samuel 
and  Isabella  Welles,  of  Boston,  April  19, 
1807.  Mr.  Sargent  was  a  painter  of  emi- 

1  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  Vol. 
25>  page  210. 


*  See  William  Austin's  letter  to  Charles  Pinckney  Sumner, 
page  46. 

[27] 


nence.  His  '  Landing  of  the  Pilgrims/  in 
the  Hall  at  Plymouth,  given  to  the  Pilgrim 
Society,  has  been  admired  by  every  visitor. 
They  had  four  children."  l 

1  Two  survived  childhood,  Henry  Winthrop  Sargent,  born 
1810,  and  John  Turner  Welles  Sargent,  born  1813,  both  gradu 
ates  of  Harvard  University. 


[28] 


II 

The  Court  Martial  of  Captain  Joseph 
Loring,  Junior 

Now  that  we  have  introduced  the  princi 
pals  and  seconds  of  the  duel,  let  us  examine 
briefly  the  causes  leading  to  it.  On  October 
8,  1805,  one  Captain  Joseph  Loring,  Junior, 
of  the  Massachusetts  Sub-Legion  of  Light 
Infantry  of  General  John  Winslow's  Legion 
ary  Brigade,  was  arrested  on  charges  pre 
ferred  by  General  Winslow.  The  Complaint 
was  addressed  to  "  Simon  Elliot,  Major  Gen 
eral  of  the  First  Division  of  the  Massachu 
setts  Militia."  General  Elliot  was  a  Federal 
ist  and  Captain  Loring  was  a  Democrat. 
The  Complaint  charged  Captain  Loring 
with  "  disobeying  a  Brigade  Order  of  the  9th 
September,  ordering  a  parade  on  Boston 
Common  for  review  and  inspection  on  the 
30th  of  same  month;  also  for  disobeying  a 
Brigade  Order  of  the  i6th  September  direct 
ing  the  Sub-Legion  of  Light  Infantry  to  ap- 

[29] 


pear  on  the  said  3Oth  with  16  sporting  car 
tridges,  both  which  orders  the  said  Captain 
Joseph  Loring  disobeyed,  and  in  an  unsoldier- 
like  manner  came  on  said  parade  without  any 
of  his  soldiers  and  there  entered  a  protest 
against  said  orders  by  delivering  to  Capt. 
John  Brazer  ...  a  paper  containing  state 
ments,  as  facts,  which  were  untrue  and  un- 
officerlike  for  him  to  state,  and  entertaining 
objections  to  said  orders  totally  contrary  to 
their  true  intent  and  meaning; "  also  that  he 
did  "  connive  at,  if  not  abet,  and  procure  the 
men  under  his  command  to  mutiny,  and  to 
neglect  and  refuse  to  appear  in  said  parade, 
and  did  not  make  use  of  all  his  influence  as 
their  commanding  officer  that  they  might  ap 
pear."  A  Division  Court  Martial  was  or 
dered  by  General  Elliot  in  the  County  Court 
House,  Boston,  and  the  trial  began  October 
29,  1805,  Captain  Loring  having  pleaded  not 
guilty.1  The  whole  trouble  grew  out  of  poli 
tics.  Captain  Loring  had  protested  against 
his  command  being  placed  at  the  parade 
below  certain  other  Captains  "  whose  com 
missions  were  posterior  to  mine."  At  any 
rate  the  members  of  his  company  espoused 

1  See  The  Militia  Reporter,  containing  "  The  Trial  of  Capt. 
Joseph  Loring,  Junior,  on  the  charges  of  Gen.  Winslow," 
printed  at  Boston  by  T.  Kennard,  1810. 

[30] 


his  cause  and   refused   to   turn  out  for  the 
parade  —  hence  the  court  martial. 

The  trial  was  a  protracted  one,  and  at  once 
the  people  and  the  newspapers  took  sides  ac 
cording  to  their  political  affiliations.  We 
have  already  seen  that  this  was  a  period  of 
violent  political  passions  and  prejudices. 
Politics  divided  families,  churches,  and  com 
munities,  and  even  entered  into  trials  for 
murder.  In  1806  Thomas  O.  Self  ridge  was 
tried  for  manslaughter  for  shooting  Charles 
Austin  on  State  Street,  Boston,  son  of  the 
Hon.  Benjamin  Austin,  a  cousin  of  William 
Austin.  Politics  led  to  the  killing  of  Austin 
and  is  said  greatly  to  have  influenced  the  trial 
of  Selfridge,  who  was  acquitted  by  the  jury. 
Politics  even  entered  into  the  conduct  of 
funerals,  for  Nathaniel  Ames  refused  to  at 
tend  the  funeral  of  his  brother,  Fisher  Ames, 
the  distinguished  Dedham  statesman,  because 
the  Federalists  had  charge  of  the  burial.1 
The  court  martial  of  Captain  Loring  tends 
to  show  that  politics  entered  into  military 
matters  as  well.2 


1  Diary  of  Nathaniel  Ames,  owned  by  the  Dedham  Histor 
ical  Society. 

2  The   Court  consisted  of  Lieut.   Col.  John   Barker,  Presi 
dent;    Major  Barnabas  Clark,  Major  Oliver  Johonnot,  Cap 
tain  William  Barnes,  Captain  Henry  Purkitt,  Captain  Adam 
Kinsley,    Captain    Michael    Harris,    Captain    John    Robinson, 

[31] 


Without  going  into  the  merits  of  the  case, 
the  trial  was  prolonged  from  October  29, 
1805,  to  December  7,  1805,  when  Captain 
Loring,  who  was  a  prisoner  all  this  time,  was 
acquitted  of  all  the  charges  preferred  against 
him.  However,  the  Court  was  sworn  not  to 
divulge  sentence  until  it  was  approved  or  dis 
approved  by  the  Major  General,  and  General 
Elliot  did  neither  for  several  months,  Cap 
tain  Loring  remaining  under  arrest  all  this 
time.  In  point  of  fact  Captain  Loring  was 
not  given  his  liberty,  nor  did  he  know  of  the 
Court's  finding,  until  April  10,  1806,  eleven 
days  after  the  duel.  General  Elliot  disap 
proved  of  the  finding.  It  is  but  fair  to  say 
that  considering  General  Elliot's  unblemished 
character  there  must  have  been  other  reasons 
than  politics  which  led  him  to  believe  that 
Captain  Loring  should  have  been  kept  in 
confinement  all  this  time. 

In  the  meantime  in  January,  1806,  Captain 
Loring  addressed  a  letter  to  Governor  Strong, 
a  Federalist,  stating  that  he  was  still  under 
arrest,  but  could  not  hear  the  result  of  his 
trial,  and  requested  His  Excellency's  inter- 
Lieutenant  John  Pratt,  Lieutenant  David  Shepard,  Lieutenant 
Elisha  French,  Jr.,  Lieutenant  Lewis  Fisher,  Lieutenant 
William  Turner,  Adjutant  Henry  M.  Lisle,  Judge  Advocate, 
in  place  of  Captain  Charles  Davis,  resigned.  Lieutenant 
George  Bass,  Marshal  to  the  Court. 

[32] 


ference.  The  Governor  ignored  his  request, 
stating  that  "  he  had  no  doubt  Gen.  Elliot 
would  do  what  was  right."  Captain  Loring 
and  the  men  of  his  company  then  addressed 
certain  Memorials  to  the  Legislature,  also 
Federalist,  asking  for  relief,  but  they  were 
referred  to  a  committee  who  reported  that  the 
signers  had  "  leave  to  withdraw  their  Memo 
rials."  This  action  of  the  Governor  and  the 
Legislature  greatly  stirred  the  people  of  Bos 
ton  and  the  surrounding  towns,  and  the  parti 
san  newspapers  devoted  much  space  to  the 
controversy. 


[33] 


Ill 

The  "Decius"  Article 

IN  the  meantime,  over  in  Charlestown,  an 
interested  spectator  of  this  turmoil  over  Cap 
tain  Loring's  trial  was  young  William  Aus 
tin,  the  lawyer.  Although  his  article  which 
caused  the  duel  states  that  he  was  "  disinter 
ested  "  and  "  biassed  by  no  party,"  yet  he 
probably  was  biassed  unconsciously,  for  in  the 
article  he  refers  slightingly  to  "  Federalism." 
Always  a  man  of  strong  convictions,  and  a 
lifelong  Democrat,  he  undoubtedly  felt  the 
prolonged  imprisonment  of  Captain  Loring 
at  the  hands  of  General  Elliot,  a  Federalist, 
to  be  a  grievous  injustice.  While  in  this  state 
of  mind  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
Captain  Loring's  publication,  on  March  12, 
1806,  of  his  "Collection  of  facts,  supported 
by  documents,  relative  to  the  unpleasant  situ 
ation  in  which  I  and  my  Company  have  found 
ourselves,"  was  the  final  straw  which  drove 

[34] 


Austin  to  attack  General  Elliot.  And  what 
easier  way  was  there  than  by  his  pen,  for 
Sidney  Willard,  his  classmate,  says,1  "  He  was 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  belle-lettrists  of 
his  class,  and  wrote  with  far  more  facility  and 
sprightliness  than  the  generality  of  its  mem 
bers."  At  all  events,  five  days  after  the  above 
publication  there  appeared  on  Monday, 
March  17,  1806,  in  the  Independent  Chroni 
cle,  a  Boston  Democratic  newspaper,  an 
anonymous  communication,  signed  "  Decius," 
addressed  to  "  Major  General  Simon  Elliot," 
violently  attacking  him  for  his  part  in  Cap 
tain  Loring's  court  martial.  This  communi 
cation  was  written  by  William  Austin  and 
was  the  immediate  cause  of  the  duel.  I  give 
it  in  full: 

"  To  Major  General  Simon  Elliot. 

"  Sir,  The  following  letter  will  command 
your  whole  attention,  and  either  rouse  your 
pride  and  self  love  to  a  proper  tone,  or  sink 
you  in  your  own  estimation  below  contempt. 
There  frequently  occurs  a  moment,  and  that 
moment  is  the  present,  when  the  oppressor 
and  the  oppressed  meet  on  equal  terms;  a 
moment  always  fearful  to  the  oppressor.  Such 
a  moment  happened  to  Caligula,  and  more 
recently  to  Marat.  Do  not  turn  away  from 
the  comparison;  it  is  not  derogatory.  You 

1  In  "  Memories  of  Youth  and  Manhood  " ;    quoted  before. 
[35] 


are  not  superior  to  the  one  in  courage,  nor  to 
the  other  in  ability.  Neither  of  these  men 
ever  exerted  their  whole  power  in  a  more 
earnest  manner  than  you  have  the  petty  au 
thority  with  which  you  are  invested ;  so  that 
you  are  perfectly  known,  if  not  ex  pede  Her- 
culem,  at  least  by  your  carriage  in  the  trap 
pings  in  which  the  blindest  chance  ever  ar 
rayed  a  Major  General.  But  be  not  alarmed, 
Sir,  you  are,  in  spite  of  yourself,  in  a  free 
country  and  secure  except  from  the  indigna 
tion  of  your  injured  fellow  citizens.  The 
abhorrence  is  the  only  punishment  to  which 
you  are  subject.  No  personal  danger  will 
happen  to  Major  General  Elliot,  unless  the 
veteran  chooses  to  run  into  it. 

"  No  man  ever  held  a  more  disinterested 
pen  than  the  one  who  now  addresses  you. 
Biassed  by  no  party,  aloof  from  all  intrigues 
both  of  a  political  and  military  nature,  at  a 
distance  from  the  Capital,  subject  to  no  Turk 
ish  mandate  and  fearful  of  no  Janizaries, 
though  fully  intelligent  in  what  passes  in  the 
military  cabinet  in  town,  I  hold  my  pen  to 
acquit  a  public  duty;  I  raise  my  voice  in  sup 
port  of  public  right,  and  in  the  name  of  an 
injured  community  I  shall  be  heard.  It  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  town  of  Boston  only,  it 
is  the  cause  of  every  man  in  the  Common 
wealth  on  whom  the  Constitution  has  imposed 
military  subjection.  It  is  not  the  cause  of 
Capt.  Loring  that  I  espouse;  I  have  no  ac 
quaintance  with  that  gentleman.  But  when 
an  injured  citizen  cannot  obtain  redress  from 
the  Commander  in  Chief,  and  in  the  last 

[36] 


resort  is  abandoned  by  the  legislature,  the 
public  is  the  only  judge. 

"  It  is  an  evil,  Sir,  common  to  every  form 
of  government,  the  republican  as  well  as  the 
despotic,  that  offices  are  sometimes  filled  in 
the  manner  that  a  certain  Roman  Emperor 
once  filled  the  Consular  office.  Indeed,  in 
time  of  peace,  when  the  uniform  makes  the 
officer,  when  capacity  is  never  questioned,  and 
when  courage  is  courteously  presumed,  it 
matters  not  who  are  Major  Generals  so  long 
as  they  assume  nothing.  Therefore,  Sir, 
though  vanity  inspired  you  to  become  a 
Major  General,  had  you  carried  yourself 
modestly  the  trappings  of  your  office  had  still 
been  sacred  and  your  merit  and  honors  un 
molested.  Pity  it  is  that  the  first  notice  you 
have  ever  attracted  should  lay  you  bare  to  an 
inspection  that  will  not  only  discover  your 
airy  nothingness  and  pompous  imbecility 
which  might  long  have  passed  current  among 
counterfeits;  but  will  not  leave  you  in  that 
condition  which  of  all  men  you  ought  most 
to  have  avoided,  and  from  the  responsibility 
of  which  you  will  call  in  vain  on  your  main 
pillar,  the  Governor,  to  release  you. 

"  It  was  certainly  an  evil  genius  which  im 
pelled  you  to  enter  the  lists  of  federalism.  Of 
all  men  you  are  the  most  helpless  in  such  a 
case.  You  can  neither  attack  nor  retreat; 
you  are  a  fixed  character,  as  much  so  as  a  man 
in  chains.  What  then  could  induce  you  to 
outrage  the  feelings  and  the  honor  of  your 
fellow  citizens  in  the  manner  you  have? 
What  could  induce  you  to  trample  on  the 

[37] 


Constitution,  which  if  you  despise,  you  ought 
at  least  to  understand?  What,  Sir,  could  in 
duce  you  to  do  a  wilful  and  unprovoked  in 
jury  >to  an  officer  in  all  respects  except  rank, 
equal  to  yourself?  Your  setters  on  will  never 
dare  shew  their  faces.  They  have  deceived 
the  Governor  and  will  betray  you.  Do  not 
imagine,  Sir,  that  the  shameful,  unprece 
dented  conduct  of  which  you  have  been  guilty 
is  supposed  to  be  your  own  deliberate  act. 
No,  Sir,  your  character,  when  left  to  itself, 
is  entirely  innocent;  it  is  scarcely  a  subject  of 
responsibility.  But,  miserably  for  you,  baf 
fled  in  their  base  attempts  which  betrayed  the 
secrets  of  hospitality  and  the  evening  fireside, 
they  have  in  the  last  resort  made  you  the  re 
pository  of  their  impotent  vengeance.  And 
you,  Sir,  regardless  of  the  Constitution  and 
forgetful  of  the  feelings  of  a  gentleman,  have 
submitted  to  take  this  public  chastisement  to 
gratify  the  malice  of  those  whom  we  have 
reason  to  believe  hate  the  very  name  of  *  Peo 
ple,  Freedom  and  Constitution! 

"  Are  you  so  weak,  Sir,  as  to  think  that  a 
fellow  citizen,  though  subaltern  to  you  in 
rank,  yea,  though  a  private,  is  not  in  every 
other  respect  your  equal?  How  then,  Sir, 
dare  you  attempt  to  establish  a  precedent  not 
less  injurious  to  the  public  than  degrading  to 
the  individual  whom  you  have  so  oppressed 
and  insulted?  A  real  man,  Sir,  in  a  country 
like  this,  is  too  self-supported  and  too  cautious 
of  his  own  and  the  rights  of  others  to  give  or 
receive  a  deliberate  insult;  and  policy  ought 
to  have  dictated  that  the  public  would  not  see 

[38] 


an  individual  dishonored  by  you  without  the 
keenest  resentment;  for  your  military  honors 
are  all  by  courtesy  and  unreal  as  the  dreams 
of  your  own  importance;  and  that  very  au 
thority  which  you  have  so  arbitrarily  exerted 
flows,  in  spite  of  you,  from  the  people. 

"  Presuming  that  you  are  now  impressed 
with  a  true  sentiment  of  your  own  real  weight 
in  society,  I  proceed  to  exhibit  to  you  and  to 
an  indignant  public  the  first  consequential  act 
of  your  public  life.  You,  Major  General 
Simon  Elliot,  not  indeed  unadvisedly,  but 
supported  by  your  irresponsible  friends,  for 
getful  of  your  official  duties  and  those  of  a 
citizen,  ambitious  of  bearing  down  and  des 
troying  an  obnoxious  individual,  have  con 
temptuously  holden  'him  under  arrest  a  most 
unreasonable  and  protracted  length  of  time 
after  he  ought  to  have  known  his  sentence. 
And  although  the  arrested  officer,  cautious  of 
the  duties  of  a  good  citizen  and  soldier,  re 
spectfully  addressed  you  to  inform  him  of  his 
sentence  after  waiting  anxiously  a  due  time, 
you  contemptuously  neglected  from  that  date 
to  this  either  to  reveal  his  sentence  or  notice 
his  request!  Is  this  true  or  is  it  false?  If 
false,  I  call  upon  you  in  the  name  of  every 
freeman  of  this  Commonwealth  to  do  your 
self  justice;  or  if  unable  to  justify  yourself, 
I  will  do  it  for  you,  But  if  it  is  true,  both 
you  and  your  advisers  shall  answer  it  to  the 
public.  You  cannot  conceal,  Sir,  the  motives 
of  this  conduct;  they  are  too  notorious  to  be 
disguised.  An  odious  spirit  of  oppression  has 
governed  the  conductors  of  the  trial  of  Capt. 

[39] 


Loring,  otherwise  they  never  would  have 
sought  evidence  against  him  from  the  un 
guarded  moments  of  friendship,  —  from  the 
convivial  frankness  of  a  domestic  evening; 
no,  Sir,  the  honorable  feelings  of  Capt.  But- 
terfield  could  never  have  been  enlisted  by  the 
coercive  measures  of  an  oath  to  betray  the 
secrets  of  the  hospitable  fire  hearth.  De 
cency,  as  well  as  the  security  of  domestic  in 
tercourse,  ought  to  have  forbidden  such  a 
shameful  breach  of  the  first  law  of  social  life. 
Yet,  to  the  honor  of  Capt.  Loring,  he  suffered 
nothing  in  the  result. 

"  Not  satisfied  with  the  protracted,  expen 
sive  and  ruinous  trial  of  an  innocent  man 
whom  all  men  suppose  to  have  been  acquitted 
with  honour,  you,  Sir,  since  the  imbecile  vio 
lence  of  your  subaltern  could  go  no  further, 
in  the  true  spirit  of  a  little  soul  have  still  kept 
him  under  arrest;  and  when  respectfully  ad 
dressed  you  have  refused  him  the  first  duty 
of  a  gentleman;  and  when  your  own  illegal 
and  tyrannical  conduct  was  manifest,  and 
when  the  Commander  in  Chief,  whose  office 
it  was  to  have  issued  peremptory  orders  to 
you,  was  addressed,  —  the  Governor,  with 
regret  I  say  it,  regardless  of  the  sufferings  of 
his  fellow  citizen,  added  a  double  weight  to 
your  own  insult. 

"  Do  you  know,  Sir,  that  every  moment  you 
have  thus  contemptuously  holden  Capt.  Lor 
ing  under  arrest  is  false  imprisonment  for 
which  yourself  ought  to  be  arrested?  What 
precedents,  Sir,  will  you  dare  to  establish 
next?  If  the  legislature,  cautious  of  med- 

[40] 


dling  in  your  official  concerns,  will  not  hear, 
—  and  if  the  Governor  approve,  the  honor, 
the  interest,  and  the  liberty  of  no  man  in  the 
County  of  Suffolk  is  secure  from  your  tyr 
anny.  You  have  only  to  mark  the  man,  and 
if  his  circumstances  are  not  affluent,  he  is 
ruined.  You  have  only  to  cry  mutiny,  and 
a  citizen  is  arrested  and  kept  under  arrest 
during  your  Turkish  pleasure.  You  have 
only  to  imagine  a  fellow  citizen  ill  disposed 
to  you,  and  every  measure  he  can  adopt,  how 
ever  respectful,  is  only  a  new  motive  of  con 
tempt.  Thank  God,  this  would  be  tolerated 
in  no  County  in  the  Commonwealth  except 
Suffolk.  A  soldier's  honor  ought  to  be  dearer 
to  him  than  his  life,  his  feelings  ought  to  be 
of  the  noblest  cast,  the  opinion  of  his  own 
dignity  ought  to  be  the  public  opinion,  — 
and  it  is  for  the  public  interest  that  the  soldier 
should  be  treated  as  the  protector  of  the  Comr 
monwealth.  Who,  Sir,  would  protect  you  in 
the  time  of  actual  danger,  —  your  own  sword, 
or  that  of  another  man?  Who,  Sir,  would 
protect  your  interest  in  the  moment  of  plun 
der,  when  perhaps  you  had  fled  and  forsaken 
it?  If  you  think  it  possible  that  a  soldier  can 
be  a  gentleman,  if  he  is  confessedly  the  sup 
port  of  everything  most  dear  to  a  freeman, 
do  you  think  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  the 
jealous  yeomanry  of  this  free  state,  will  per 
mit  the  oppression  of  a  worthy  officer,  let  who 
will  dare  to  establish  the  precedent?  It  is  the 
cause,  Sir,  of  the  whole,  and  I  speak  in  be 
half  of  every  freeman  in  the  state;  for  the 
degradation  of  the  soldier  in  a  free  country 

[41] 


is  the  first  step  to  tyranny.  Preserve  the  sol 
dier's  honor,  reverence  him,  cover  him  with 
laurel  when  he  merits  it,  reward  him  like 
Eaton,  and  he  will  become  not  only  an  orna 
ment  to  his  country  in  time  of  war,  but  the 
best  of  citizens  in  the  time  of  peace;  for  the 
responsibility  which  a  man  takes  to  himself 
is  the  pole  star  of  his  conduct.  On  the  con 
trary,  hold  him  in  jeopardy  of  his  honor,  his 
interest,  and  his  liberty,  and  let  these  be  sac 
rificed  at  pleasure  on  the  altar  which  you 
have  reared  in  Boston,  and  the  soldier  is  at 
once  no  longer  worthy  either  to  protect  or 
enjoy  freedom.  This  is  the  point  to  which 
you  and  your  Janizaries  would  doubtless  be 
happy  to  reduce  the  people  of  this  Common 
wealth;  but  know,  Sir,  you  are  not  a  man 
destined  to  do  any  good  or  much  harm,  other 
wise  than  as  your  setters  on  may  push  you 
beyond  their  own  responsibility. 

"  DECIUS. 

"  [My  real  name  may  be  had  at  the  pub 
lishers',  if  Gen.  Elliot  appears  in  person  to 
obtain  it]  " 

This  attack  on  General  Elliot  was  prob 
ably  written  from  Concord,  Massachusetts, 
where  Austin  was  attending  court,  for  he  says 
that  he  is  "  at  a  distance  from  the  Capital " ; 
and  we  know  from  his  letter  to  his  second, 
Mr.  Sumner,  that  he  was  in  Concord  on  the 
morning  succeeding  the  publication  of  the 

[42] 


attack.  The  Independent  Chronicle  and  its 
subscribers  doubtless  considered  the  attack  as 
all  very  proper  and  just.  The  Federalists,  on 
the  contrary,  took  the  opposite  view.  The 
Boston  Gazette  (Federalist)  of  March  20, 
1806,  spoke  of  the  "  infamous  attack  in  the 
Chronicle  on  Gen.  Elliot,"  —  that  it  was  a 
wretched  and  deplorable  state  of  society  when 
individuals  could  "  with  impunity  calumni 
ate  the  fairest  and  most  amiable  characters, 
and  through  the  medium  of  a  licentious  press 
endeavor  to  blast  at  once  the  well  earned 
reputation  of  a  life  of  honor  and  virtue." 


[43] 


IV 

The  Challenge  and  Acceptance 

THERE  is  no  doubt  that  General  Elliot  was 
much  incensed  at  the  "  Decius  "  article  and 
that  he  at  once  took  advantage  of  the  post 
script  to  ascertain  the  "  real  name  "  of  the 
writer.  There  is  some  authority  for  saying 
that  after  learning  this  fact,  and  on  the  very 
same  day,  he  met  Austin  on  Court  Street, 
Boston,  assaulted  him,  and  was  worsted  in  the 
encounter.  If  this  is  a  fact,  Austin  must  have 
left  Concord  for  Boston,  returning  to  Con 
cord  that  evening.  Some  color,  moreover,  is 
given  to  this  story  by  certain  memoranda 
written  by  Austin  himself  relating  to  the 
events  leading  up  to  the  duel,  wherein  he 
vaguely  refers  to  a  certain  "  assault "  which 
General  Elliot  had  made  on  him  the  day  of 
the  "  Decius  "  publication.1 

It  is  evident  that  General  Elliot,  after  as 
certaining  who  "  Decius  "  was,  within  a  few 

1  See  Appendix  C  for  these  memoranda. 

[44] 


hours  certainly,  communicated  the  fact  to  his 
son,  James  Henderson  Elliot,  who  now  en 
ters  the  scene  for  the  first  time  as  a  principal 
in  the  affair  and  the  upholder  of  his  father's 
honor. 

Young  Elliot,  according  to  the  code  of  the 
duello,  immediately  sought  out  his  friend, 
Henry  Sargent,  to  carry  a  challenge  to  Aus 
tin.  So  quickly  did  events  move  that  Sargent, 
travelling  either  by  horseback  or  stage,  ar 
rived  at  Concord  the  next  morning  after  the 
"  Decius  "  publication,  March  i8th,  and  de 
livered  his  message  to  Austin  at  the  Court 
House.  Perhaps  I  might  state  here  that 
young  Elliot's  determination  to  fight  Austin 
must  have  been  soon  known  in  Boston,  for  the 
latter  received  a  letter  from  his  friend,  Sum- 
ner,  at  Concord,  March  191)1,  offering  his 
services  in  any  trouble  which  might  arise. 
Austin's  reply  to  Suimner  of  the  same  date,  the 
original  of  which  is  in  the  present  writer's 
possession,  is  the  best  evidence  of  what  took 
place  in  Concord  between  Austin  and  Sar 
gent.1 

1This  letter,  together  with  Elliot's  acceptance  of  Austin's 
terms  and  other  memoranda  (see  later)  relating  to  the  duel, 
were  recently  found  by  me  among  some  of  my  father's  old 
papers  in  an  envelope  endorsed  with  the  words  "  Relating  to 
the  Duel,  Wm.  Austin,"  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Hon. 
Arthur  W.  Austin,  eldest  son  of  William  Austin. 

[45] 


"CONCORD,  March  i9th,  1806. 
"  My  dear  fellow, 

"  Your  letter  which  I  have  this  moment  re 
ceived  is  highly  grateful  to  my  feelings,  for  I 
am  really  in  want  of  your  kindest  offices.  I 
feel  perfectly  secure  from  any  dishonorable 
attack;  for  the  disgrace  attending  it  is  my 
sufficient  protection. 

"  I  have  to  request  you,  and  I  should  have 
made  this  request  had  you  not  written  me,  to 
provide  a  pair  of  as  good  pistols  as  you  can 
procure,  and  if  possible,  try  them,  with  some 
confidential  friend.  If  you  ask  wherefore?  I 
have  to  tell  you  that  Mr.  Henry  Sargent 
called  me  out  of  the  Court  House  yesterday 
morning  with  a  message  from  young  Elliot. 
I  perceived  he  had  a  weapon,  and  before  I 
went  out  I  asked  him  in  a  low  voice  if  he  was 
alone?  He  said  yes,  —  we  then  walked  and 
had  considerable  conversation.  He  first 
opened  upon  me  with  young  Elliot's  expecta 
tion  that  I  would  give  him  the  satisfaction  of 
a  gentleman.  I  told  him  by  all  means,  that  I 
expected  to  hear  from  him  and  commended 
his  filial  conduct.  He  then  told  me  that  it 
was  Elliot's  determination  that  one  of  us 
should  fall.  I  told  him  that  depended  on 
himself  (Elliot),  that  I  presumed  young 
Elliot  was  a  brave  man  and  was  in  the  habit 
of  believing  every  man  brave  until  he  proved 
the  contrary.  He  then  replied  that  Gen. 
Elliot's  friends  highly  disapproved  my  con 
duct,  and  that  it  was  their  general  opinion 
that  I  was  much  to  blame.  I  told  him  what 
I  had  done  was  a  deliberate  act,  that  it  was 

[46] 


passed,  and  I  would  support  it,  and  though 
the  responsibility  was  personal,  the  hazard 
was  in  behalf  of  an  indignant  and  injured 
community.  He  then  spoke  of  an  apology 
and  acknowledgment.  I  told  him  that  was 
impossible.  He  said  it  would  not  be  degra 
ding.  I  told  him  I  always  suffered  most 
when  I  injured  the  feelings  of  another,  that  I 
had  before  that  asked  pardon  of  those  whom 
I  was  convinced  I  had  illtreated,  and  on  all 
occasions  was  ready  to  do  it;  but  that  in  the 
present  case,  though  I  did  not  see  how  young 
Elliot  could  consistently  with  filial  respect  act 
otherwise,  yet  for  myself,  if  I  had  an  hundred 
lives  I  would  give  them  all  in  the  present 
cause,  for  it  was  apparent  that  what  I  had 
done  was  a  deliberate  act  and  I  was  per 
suaded  of  my  own  open,  undisguised  and 
proper  conduct. 

"  I  then  told  him  I  was  sorry  he  had  called 
on  me  in  that  open  manner,  as  it  might  create 
suspicion.  He  said  he  would  guard  against 
that;  and  I  then  told  him  it  was  impossible 
for  me  consistent  with  my  obligations  to 
others  to  leave  Concord  instantly,  and  with 
my  reasons  he  acquiesced.  I  told  him  I 
would  bespeak  the  good  offices  of  a  confiden 
tial  friend  who  would  on  Sunday  or  Monday 
at  furthest  wait  on  him  (at  the  corner  of 
Essex  Street  he  lives)  and  that  it  would  be 
most  agreeable  to  me  to  go  to  Rhode  Island, 
or  anywhere  out  of  the  State,  which  he  like 
wise  thought  most  prudent.  We  then  respect 
fully  parted. 

"  Thus  you  see,  my  dear  fellow,  that  your 

[47] 


assistance  is  indispensably  necessary,  and 
though  I  have  thought  of  several,  on  whom  I 
have  small  claims,  yet  I  had  chosen  you  on 
whom  I  had  no  claim  in  the  present  case,  on 
account  of  your  holding  a  commission  under 
the  Major  Genl.  —  I  am  convinced  it  is  a 
point  of  delicacy,  on  acc't  of  your  military 
situation,  and  therefore  I  beg  you  to  consider 
of  it —  But  be  so  good  as  to  procure  the  pis 
tols  —  Those  which  I  own,  my  mother,  I  sup 
pose,  has  hid  them,  and  I  have  not  seen  them 
this  year. 

"  Yours  &c., 

"WM.  AUSTIN. 

"  Excuse  this  paper,  it  is  the  best  I  could 
get." 

This  letter  addressed  to  "  My  dear  fellow  " 
doubtless  meant  Mr.  Sumner.  We  know 
Sumner  was  Austin's  second,  probably  an 
intimate  friend  of  his,  being  two  years  his 
senior  in  college,  and  this  is  just  such  a  letter 
as  one  would  have  addressed  to  his  second  on 
the  eve  of  a  duel.  Furthermore,  the  letter 
refers  to  "  your  holding  a  commission  under 
the  Major  Genl."  and  Sumner  was  a  Lieuten 
ant  in  the  Boston  Regiment. 

This  straightforward,  manly  letter  states 
Austin's  position  clearly.  There  is  no  shrink 
ing  from  the  encounter,  but  a  prompt  accept- 

[48] 


ance  of  the  challenge.  What  he  had  done 
was  a  deliberate  act  for  which  he  held  him 
self  wholly  responsible. 

In  addition  to  the  above  letter  there  are 
some  other  notes  and  memoranda  referring  to 
this  meeting  at  Concord,  written  by  William 
Austin,  probably  at  some  time  prior  to  the 
duel,  and  possibly  for  the  purpose  of  refresh 
ing  his  recollection  at  some  later  period.1  I 
give  them  in  full :  — 

"  On  Tuesday  morning,  18  March,  1806, 
Mr.  Austin  being  in  the  Court  House  at  Con 
cord  attending  his  professional  business,  Mr. 
Henry  Sargent  (brother  of  the  one  who  yes 
terday  attended  Gen.  Elliot)  called  him  out 
and  said  '  Mr.  J.  H.  E.,  the  son  of  Gen.  E., 
is  chagrined  with  the  treatment  which  his 
father  yesterday  reed,  from  you,  and  expects 
you  will  meet  him  and  give  him  the  satisfac 
tion  of  a  gentleman.  My  name  is  Henry  Sar 
gent;  I  live  in  Essex  Street  in  Boston  &  am 
authorized  by  Mr.  J.  H.  E.  to  call  on  you 
with  this  message  from  him/ 

"  Mr.  A.  then  said  '  I  shall  be  indispensably 
occupied  by  professional  duties  till  the  Court 
rises,  but  Mr.  Elliot  shall  not  be  disappointed 
in  his  expectations.  The  Court  will  probably 
rise  on  Saturday  the  22  March.  I  shall  then 
make  my  arrangements  for  meeting  Mr.  El 
liot,  and  they  shall  be  communicated  to  you 

1They  are  in  the  handwriting  of  William  Austin  and  were 
found  in  the  same  envelope  with  the  letter  to  Sumner. 

[49] 


by  some  confidential  hand  as  early  as  Mon 
day  next  the  24th  of  March.' ' 

Following  is  the  way  the  notes  were  first 
written,  but  crossed  out  and  above  substituted : 

"On  Tuesday  morning,  18  March,  1806, 
Mr.  Austin  being  in  the  Court  House  at  Con 
cord  attending  his  professional  business,  Mr. 
Henry  Sargent  (brother  of  the  one  who  yes 
terday  attended  Gen.  Elliot)  called  Mr.  Aus 
tin  out  of  the  Court  House  and  delivered  him 
a  message  from  Mr.  James  Henderson  Elliot. 
This  message  contrary  to  all  precedent  was  a 
verbal  message  by  a  person  unknown  to  Mr. 
Austin.  Had  it  been  in  writing  it  would  have 
been  in  purport  as  follows :  — 

1  MR.  WILLIAM  AUSTIN, 

*  SIR,  I  cannot  live  under  the  thought  of 
the  treatment  which  my  father  yesterday  re 
ceived  from  your  hand.  I  have  the  character 
and  feelings  of  a  gentleman;  I  am  convinced 
you  are  one,  &  request  you  will  give  me  an 
opportunity  to  take  your  life. 

'JAMES  HENDERSON  ELLIOT. 

'  BOSTON,  Tuesday  morning,  6  o'clock,  18 
March,  1806.'" 


[50] 


Terms  and  Conditions  of  the  Duel 

WE  have  now  seen  from  the  letter  to  Sum- 
ner  and  the  other  memoranda  what  occurred 
in  Concord  between  Austin  and  Sargent 
(Elliot's  second),  —  the  challenge  was  given 
and  promptly  accepted.  Austin  promised 
Sargent  that  a  friend  of  his  would  wait  on 
him  not  later  than  the  following  Monday, 
March  24th,  to  arrange  terms,  and  that  it 
would  be  agreeable  for  him  to  fight  either  in 
Rhode  Island  or  some  other  state.  It  is  fair 
to  presume  that  Sumner,  acting  for  Austin, 
waited  on  Sargent  on  the  24th  of  March,  and 
presented  the  following  terms  and  conditions 
of  the  duel,  which  had  been  drawn  up  either 
by  Austin  or  Sumner,1  and  were  accepted  by 
Elliot  on  the  same  day: 

"  Mr.  A.  will  meet  Mr.  E.  with  a  brace  of 
pistols  on  the  borders  of  a  neighboring  state, 
this  day  week  at  sunrise. 

1  In  the  same  envelope  with  the  other  papers.  The  hand 
writing  is  similar  to  Austin's,  though  Sumner  may  have  writ 
ten  them. 

[51] 


"  Mr.  E.  shall  elect  the  particular  spot; 
and  Mr.  A.  shall  elect  position.  The  spot 
shall  be  made  known  to  Mr.  A.  by  Thursday 
evening  7  o'clock. 

"  The  position  shall  be  chosen  by  Mr.  A . 
after  the  ground  is  marked  off  and  seen  by 
each  party. 

"Mr.  A.  will  exchange  2  shots  with  Mr.  E. 
at  12  or  i o  paces  distance  as  Mr.  E.  shall 
please. 

"  Both  parties  shall  fire  at  the  same  time  & 
by  word  of  Command. 

"  The  pistols  fired  at  once,  shall  be  alike, 
and  loaded  alike  with  one  ball  each. 

"  Whatever  may  be  the  kind  of  pistols 
which  either  party  carries  on  to  the  ground 
his  antagonist  shall  have  his  choice  of  them. 

"The  pistols  of  Mr.  E.,  the  challenger, 
shall  be  fired  first  and  if  neither  party  is 
wounded  or  satisfied  the  pistols  of  Mr.  A.,  the 
challenged,  shall  then  be  fired. 

"  The  participation  of  pistols  is  proposed  in 
order  to  render  the  hazard  as  equal  as  possi 
ble  ;  &  in  some  degree  to  take  away  the  supe 
riority  which  practice  may  have  given  to  the 
one  over  the  other. 

"  After  the  ground  is  marked  off,  and  the 
parties  have  taken  their  position,  the  second 
of  Mr.  E.  the  challenger  shall  give  the  first 
word  of  command  in  the  following  manner. 
He  shall  ask  the  parties  '  are  you  ready  '  —  if 
both  parties  answer  '  yes '  —  he  shall  say 
*  present '  —  '  fire  '  —  pausing  a  second  be 
tween  the  words. 

"  If  the  first  fire  should  not  prove  satisfac- 

[52] 


tory,  nor  wound  either  of  the  parties  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  induce  him  to  decline  a  second 
shot,  the  second  of  Mr.  A.  shall  then  ask  the 
parties  '  are  you  ready '  —  if  both  parties  an 
swer  '  yes  '  —  he  shall  then  say  *  present '  — 
*  fire  '  —  pausing  a  second  between  the  words. 

"  Neither  party  shall  hold  more  than  one 
pistol  at  a  time.  When  the  first  brace  is  fired, 
each  second  shall  go  to  his  principal,  receive 
his  discharged  pistol,  &  give  him  the  other 
that  is  charged. 

"  There  shall  be  only  2  pair  of  pistols  car 
ried  on  to  the  ground.  Neither  of  the  sec 
onds  shall  hold  more  than  one  pistol,  and  that 
solely  for  the  use  of  his  principal;  during 
the  first  fire  the  pistols  in  the  hands  of  the 
seconds  shall  be  loaded;  during  the  second 
fire  they  shall  not  be  loaded.  The  seconds 
shall  each  of  them  stand  from  the  other  at 
the  same  distance  at  which  the  principals 
stand,  each  second  on  the  right  hand  of  his 
principal,  equally  distant  from  both  parties; 
on  a  line  drawn  at  right  angles  over  the 
centre  of  the  line  of  fire. 

"  The  strictest  silence  possible  shall  be  pre 
served  on  the  ground,  which  shall  not  be  in 
terrupted  except  by  the  second  giving  the 
word  of  command;  or  by  one  second  speak 
ing  to  the  other  second  or  to  his  own  prin 
cipal. 

"  Mr.  A.  entertaining  no  inimical  feelings 
towards  Mr.  E.  does  not  conceive  himself  in 
honor  bound  to  expose  his  own  life  or  that  of 
Mr.  E.  to  any  greater  hazard  than  is  here 
offered,  —  especially  as  Mr.  A.  does  not  hold 

[53] 


himself  particularly  responsible  to  Mr.  E. 
while  superior  claims  may  with  more  pro 
priety  be  urged  against  him  by  another;  and 
as  it  is  wholly  from  motives  of  delicacy  to 
Mr.  E.  that  Mr.  A.  has  consented  to  consider 
him  a  party  in  this  affair.  Although  the  act 
of  Mr.  A.  at  which  Mr.  E.  has  taken  offense 
was  a  deliberate  act  for  which  Mr.  A.  cannot 
at  present  offer  any  other  satisfaction  than 
what  is  here  offered  —  it  is  not  impossible  but 
that  the  measures,  to  which  Genl.  E.  is  having 
recourse  may  place  matters  in  a  different  light 
from  that  in  which  Mr.  A.  has  hitherto 
viewed  them ;  —  in  which  case  he  will  be 
proud  to  make  any  acknowledgment  that 
circumstances  may  then  render  proper,  —  and 
to  say  or  do  everything  which  any  gentleman 
of  honorable  feelings  can  wish  or  expect  of 
another." 

"  I  accept  of  the  above  proposal  of  Wm. 
Austin  Esqr. 

"  JAMES  HENDERSON  ELLIOT. 
"BOSTON,  March  24,  1806." 

We  see  by  the  last  paragraph  that  Austin 
has  offered  an  opportunity  for  a  reconcilia 
tion,  but  no  headway  was  made  in  this  direc 
tion.  Both  parties  in  the  meantime  got  ready 
for  the  encounter,  and  the  place  and  time  of 
the  meeting  and  other  details  were  arranged. 
Did  the  parents  of  the  two  young  men  know 
what  was  about  to  take  place?  Probably  they 

[54]  " 


did,  and  we  can  imagine  their  feelings.  Miss 
Mary  Elliot  Torrey  remembers  her  mother 
(General  Elliot's  daughter)  telling  her  how 
the  General  paced  his  room  back  and  forth 
for  hours  at  a  time,  after  the  principals  had 
started  for  the  duelling  ground,  waiting  for 
news  from  his  only  son.  And  what  were  the 
feelings  of  Austin's  fiancee,  Miss  Charlotte 
Williams,  daughter  of  Dr.  Isaac  Williams?1 

1They  were  married  in  Roxbury,  June  19,  1806,  less  than 
three  months  after  the  duel. 


[55] 


VI 

/ 

The  Duel 

THE  duel  was  fought  at  sunrise,  Monday 
morning,  March  31,  1806,  a  week  after  Elli 
ot's  acceptance  of  Austin's  terms.  The  field 
of  combat  was  Cold  Spring,  Rhode  Island, 
now  a  part  of  Providence.  Cold  Spring  was 
between  Pitman  and  Waterman  Streets,  close 
to  Pitman,  and  between  East  River  Street  and 
Bellevue  Street.  Fifteen  years  ago  the  spring 
was  filled  up.  It  used  to  flow  into  "  Round 
Cove."  l 

It  is  likely  that  both  principals  with  their 
seconds  set  out  by  stage  from  Boston  to  Prov 
idence  on  Sunday,  March  3Oth,  the  trip  ta 
king  about  five  and  a  half  hours.  Probably 
they  all  spent  the  night  in  Providence,  and 
met  at  the  agreed  spot  at  sunrise  next 
morning. 

In  regard  to  the  duel  itself,  I  have  been 

1The  information  in  regard  to  Cold  Spring  is  from  the 
Librarian  of  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society. 

[56] 


unable  to  find  any  reference  in  the  contem 
porary  Boston  papers,  the  whole  affair  prob 
ably  being  kept  secret  on  account  of  the  se- 
.vere  laws  in  Massachusetts  against  duelling. 
However,  two  of  the  Providence  papers  give 
brief  accounts  of  it,  in  both  of  which,  curi- 
.ously  enough,  William  Austin  is  erroneously 
Called  "  Charles  Austin."  Probably  the  af 
fair  was  kept  as  much  of  a  secret  in  Rhode 
Island1  as  in  Boston  and  the  mistake  is  nat 
ural,  especially  as  after  the  duel  all  hands 
immediately  returned  to  Boston,  without  im 
parting  much  information.  The  names  of  the 
other  parties  are  given  correctly.  These  two 
newspaper  accounts  of  the  duel  are  the  only 
ones  I  can  find  which  go  into  details  to  any 
extent. 

From  the  Providence  Gazette  of  Saturday, 
April  5,  1806: 

"  Duel 

"  On  Monday  morning  last  a  duel  was 
fought  at  Cold  Spring,  in  the  vicinity  of  this 
town,  between  Mr.  James  Elliot  and  Mr. 
Charles  Austin,  of  Boston.2  The  seconds 
were,  Mr.  Sargent  for  Mr.  Elliot,  and  Mr. 
Sumner  for  Mr.  Austin.  The  combatants  in- 

1The  laws  against  duelling  in  Rhode  Island  were  not  very 
severe.    See  Appendix  D. 
2  The  residence  is  also  erroneously  given. 

[57] 


tended  exchanging  three  shots,  at  ten  paces 
distant.  On  the  first  fire,  Mr.  Austin's  pistol 
flashed,  and  Mr.  Elliot's  ball  wounded  Mr. 
Austin  in  the  neck.  On  the  second,  Mr.  Aus 
tin  was  again  wounded  in  the  thigh.  The 
third  fire  did  not  take  effect.  The  parties 
immediately  quitted  the  ground,  and  set  out 
on  their  return  for  Boston.  Mr.  Austin's 
wounds  we  are  happy  to  learn  are  not  dan 
gerous.  Gross  abuse  offered  to  the  father  of 
Mr.  Elliot  is  said  to  have  led  to  this  serious 
business." 

From  the  Providence  Phoenix  of  Saturday, 
April  5,  1806: 

"  Duel.  —  On  Monday  morning  last  a  duel 
was  fought  at  Cold  Spring,  in  the  vicinity  of 
this  town,  between  Mr.  Charles  Austin,  of 
Charlestown,  and  Mr.  James  Elliot,  of  Bos 
ton —  the  seconds  were,  Mr.  Sumner  for  Mr. 
A.  and  Mr.  Sargent  for  Mr.  E.  —  distance 
10  paces.  The  parties  exchanged  three  shots. 
The  first  round  Mr.  A.'s  pistol  flashed,  Mr. 
E.  fired  and  wounded  Mr.  A.  in  the  neck;  the 
second  round  they  both  fired  and  Mr.  A.  was 
wounded  in  the  thigh;  the  third  round  had 
no  effect.  The  parties  immediately  retired 
from  the  field  for  Boston.  We  understand 
Mr.  A's  wounds  are  not  dangerous." 

In  the  Providence  Phoenix  of  April  19, 
1806,  less  than  three  weeks  after  the  duel,  is 
the  brief  story  of  a  "  Philosophic  Duel  "  in 

[58] 


the  Austrian  Netherlands.     At  the  close  oc 
curs  the  following  paragraph:  — 

"  If  our  countrymen,  instead  of  sacrificing 
each  other  in  the  first  heat  of  passion,  would 
lay  up  their  resentments  in  the  drawer  of 
calm  reflection  for  a  few  weeks,  points  of 
honour  might  be  adjusted  without  a  single 
blow,  and  the  bloody  sacrifices  too  frequently 
offered  on  the  altars  of  pride  and  revenge,  be 
converted  into  ties  of  benevolence  and  good 
will." 

Were  these  reflections  probably  suggested 
by  the  Austin-Elliot  duel? 

As  evidence  of  the  bitter  feeling  between 
Austin  and  Elliot  three  shots  apiece  were 
fired,  instead  of  two  as  the  articles  of  agree 
ment  called  for.  Moreover,  Austin  was 
wounded  in  each  of  the  first  two  exchanges, 
and  as  blood  had  been  shed  the  seconds  could 
have  intervened  with  perfect  propriety  either 
time  and  declared  "  honor  satisfied  " ;  but  the 
principals,  doubtless  in  their  heat,  insisted  on 
a  third  exchange.  Probably  this  bitter  feel 
ing  disappeared  shortly  afterwards,  as  both 
were  brave  and  honorable  men  and  fought 
for  their  honor  as  they  saw  it.  Young  Elliot 
unhappily  died  two  years  later  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five;  and  as  I  stated  in  the  Preface, 
Austin,  my  grandfather,  deeply  regretted  the 
[59] 


whole  affair  and  rarely,  if  ever,  alluded  to  it 
to  his  children.  In  closing  I  hope  that  this 
account  of  an  affair  of  honor,  108  years  ago, 
between  two  brave  gentlemen,  may  be  of  in 
terest  to  their  descendants  and  relatives. 


[60] 


APPENDIX 


Publications   referring   to    the   Austin-Elliot 

duel 

"  The  Hundred  Boston  Orators,"  by  James 
Spear  Loring,  1852,  pages  328,  329.  Article 
on  Charles  Pinckney  Sumner: 

"About  the  year  1805,  when  political  ex 
citement  was  warm,  William  Austin  of  the 
Democratic  party,  author  of  *  Letters  from 
London/  in  consequence  of  political  differ 
ences  with  Gen.  Simon  Elliott,  in  the  Chron 
icle,  over  '  Decius,'  was  challenged  by  James 
H.,  son  of  the  General.  Mr.  Sumner  was  the 
second  for  Mr.  Austin,  and  the  field  of  com 
bat  was  in  Rhode  Island.  One  of  the  parties, 
Mr.  Austin,  was  slightly  wounded  by  a  pistol 
shot.  Mr.  Sumner  deeply  regretted  having 
taken  a  part  in  this  conflict,  and  the  subject 
was  unknown  to  his  children  until  after  his 
decease." 

Duyckinck's    "  Cyclopaedia    of    American 
Literature,"  1855,  pages  658,  659,  speaking  of 
William  Austin: 
[61] 


"  About  the  year  1805  we  ^ear  °f  Austin's 
being  engaged  in  a  duel  with  James  H.  El 
liott,  growing  out  of  a  political  newspaper 
altercation.  The  duel  was  fought  in  Rhode 
Island,  and  Austin  was  slightly  wounded." 

"  Notes  on  Duels  and  Duelling,"  by  Lo 
renzo  Sabine,  Boston,  1859;  3rd  edition, 
page  318: 

"Austin,  William,  and  James  H.  Elliott. 
In  Rhode  Island  about  the  year  1805,  with 
pistols.  Elliott  gave  the  challenge.  Both 
were  Massachusetts  gentlemen,  and,  I  sup 
pose,  citizens  of  Boston.  The  difference  was 
political,  and  grew  out  of  a  newspaper  dis 
cussion  between  Austin  and  the  father  of  El 
liott.  Austin  was  wounded,  but  Elliott  es 
caped  unhurt.  Charles  Pinckney  Sumner 
(father  of  Hon.  Charles  Sumner,  Senator  in 
Congress  from  Massachusetts),  who  became 
subsequently  sheriff  of  the  County  of  Suffolk, 
was  the  second  of  the  latter.1  Mr.  Sumner 
deeply  regretted  having  taken  part  in  this 
conflict,  and  the  subject  was  unknown  to  his 
children  until  after  his  decease." 

Pamphlet  including  the  story  of  "  Peter 
Rugg,  the  Missing  Man,"  published  at 
Worcester;  Franklin  P.  Rice,  publisher, 
1882: 

"  In  1805,  in  consequence  of  a  misunder 
standing  growing  out  of  a  political  contest, 

1  Error.     Sumner  was  Austin's  second. 

[62] 


Austin  engaged  in  a  duel  with  James  H. 
Elliot  and  was  slightly  wounded.  The  affair 
took  place  in  Rhode  Island,  and  Austin's 
second  was  Charles  Pinckney  Sumner,  father 
of  Charles  Sumner." 

Bunker  Hill  Times,  August  2,  1884: 

"  He  [William  Austin]  was  a  graceful  and 
vigorous  writer,  and  his  political  articles 
were  written  with  much  force.  In  conse 
quence  of  these  articles  he  fought  a  duel,  in 
1806,  with  James  H.  Elliot,  having  for  his 
second  the  Hon.  Charles  P.  Sumner,  the 
father  of  the  late  Senator  Sumner." 

"  A  Precursor  of  Hawthorne,"  by  Thomas 
Wentworth  Higginson,  in  The  Independent, 
March  29,  1888: 

"  [Austin]  was  wounded  in  a  duel,  fought 
in  Rhode  Island,  with  James  H.  Elliott." 

"  A  Library  of  American  Literature,"  by 
Stedman  and  Hutchinson,  New  York,  1890: 

"About  1805  Austin  fought  a  duel  with 
James  H.  Elliot,  —  the  result  of  a  newspaper 
controversy,  —  and  was  slightly  wounded." 

"  Old  Charlestown,"  by  Timothy  T.  Saw 
yer;  Boston,  1902: 

"  In  1805  he  [William  Austin]  was 
wounded  in  a  duel  with  James  H.  Elliot,  the 
trouble  growing  out  of  a  political  newspaper 
altercation." 

[63] 


"  Stories  New  and  Old,"  by  Hamilton  W. 
Mabie;  New  York,  1908.  Introduction  to 
"  Peter  Rugg,  the  Missing  Man  ": 

"  His  [Austin's]  activities  in  politics  is  sug 
gested  by  the  fact  that  early  in  the  last  cen 
tury  he  was  wounded  in  a  duel,  the  culmina 
tion  of  a  political  quarrel." 


B 


George  T.  Little,  Esq.,  Librarian  of  Bow- 
doin  College,  writes: 

"  All  that  I  know  about  James  Henderson 
Elliot,  who  received  the  degree  of  A.  M.  ad 
eundem  here  in  1806  is  that  he  was  born  n 
July,  1782,  at  Boston,  Mass.;  graduated  at 
Harvard,  1802,  received  an  A.M.  in  course 
there  in  1805,  an^  died  20  April,  1808.  He 
was  probably  one  of  the  group  of  young  men 
who  came  from  Boston  with  the  Governor  to 
attend  our  First  Commencement  which  was 
a  great  gala  day  for  the  District  of  Maine,  at 
least  in  literary  circles." 


On  the  same  paper  with  the  other  memo 
randa  written  by  William  Austin  (see  page 
49),  referring  to  the  meeting  between  Austin 
and  Sargent  at  Concord,  is  this  statement  in 
Austin's  handwriting  (quoting  Sargent), 
suggesting  a  certain  assault  by  General  Elliot 

[64] 


on  Austin  on  the  day  of  the  "  Decius "  pub 
lication  : 

"  Mr.  J.  H.  E.,  the  son  of  Gen.  E.,  cannot 
live  under  the  thought  of  the  treatment  which 
his  father  rec'd  yesterday  from  your  hands  — 
is  resolved  to  kill  or  assault  you  as  his  father 
the  Gen.  did  yes,1  unless  you  will  meet  him 
and  give  him  the  satisfaction  of  a  gentleman." 

Interlined  in  the  above  and  crossed  out  is 
this :  "  names  the  Gen.'s  assault  on  you." 

D 

Providence  Gazette,  May  31,  1800: 
"  For  the  Providence  Gazette 

"  As  the  pernicious  practice  of  duelling 
seems  to  be  a  growing  evil  in  the  United 
States,  and  many  people  seem  not  to  have 
raised  in  their  minds  that  abhorrence  which 
ought  to  be  felt  by  every  citizen  who  wishes 
to  be  the  friend  of  humanity  and  his  country; 
and  as  evil  examples  are  catching,  you  are 
requested  to  publish  the  following  sections 
from  the  laws  of  this  State,  as  lately  revised, 
under  the  head  CRIMES,  for  the  prevention 
thereof. 

"A. 

"  Sec.  17.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That 
every  person  who  shall  voluntarily  and  from 

1  Probably  means  "  yesterday." 

[65] 


malice,  displeasure,  fury  or  revenge,  engage 
in  a  duel  with  sword  and  pistol,  or  other  dan 
gerous  weapon,  to  the  hazard  of  life,  al 
though  death  doth  not  ensue  thereby,  shall  be 
carried  publicly  in  a  cart  to  the  gallows,  with 
a  rope  about  his  neck,  and  set  thereon  for  the 
space  of  one  hour,  with  a  rope  about  his  neck 
as  aforesaid,  and  be  imprisoned  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  one  year,  or  shall  suffer  either  or 
both  said  penalties,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Court. 

"  Sec.  27.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That 
every  person  who  shall  challenge  another,  by 
word,  message,  or  any  other  way,  to  fight  a 
duel,  or  who  shall  accept  a  challenge,  though 
no  duel  be  fought,  or  shall  any  way  abet, 
prompt,  encourage  or  seduce  any  person  to 
fight  a  duel,  or  to  challenge  another  to  fight, 
shall  be  fined  not  exceeding  five  hundred 
dollars,  and  be  imprisoned  not  exceeding  six 
months." 


[66] 


INDEX 


Abbott,  John,  16 
Ames,  Fisher,  31 
Ames,  Nathaniel,  31 
Austin,  Arthur  W.,  45 
Austin,  Benjamin,  31 
Austin,  Charles,  31 
Austin,  James  W.,  17,  18 
Austin,  Nathaniel,  14 
Austin,  William,  Preface,  13- 

18,  26,  27,  34,  35,  42,  45,  48- 
59,  61-65 

Barker,  Lieut.  Col.  John,  31 
Barnard,  Eliza,  19 
Barnes,  Capt.  William,  31 
Bass,  Lieut.  George,  32 
Brazer,  Capt.  John,  30 
Buckingham,  Joseph  T.,   16 
Burr,  Aaron,  13 
Butterfield,  Capt.,  40 

Cabot,  Charles  M.,  Preface 

Cabot,  Harry,  23 

Cabot,  James  Elliot,  Preface, 

19,  20,  22 

Cabot,  Mrs.  Samuel,  22,  23 
Channing,  Rev.,  26 
Clark,  Maj.  Barnabas,  31 

Davis,  Capt.  Charles,  32 

[67] 


Davis,  General,  25 
Donnison,  General,  25 

Eaton,  42 

Elliot,  Elizabeth,  19,  21 

Elliot,      James      Henderson, 

Preface,   13,   19,  20-26,  45, 

46,  48,  50-65 

Elliot,  Sarah  Wilson,  19 
Elliot,  Gen.   Simon,   Preface, 

13,  18-23,  27,  29,  30,  32-44, 

46-50,  54,  55,  61,  62,  64,  65 

Fay,  Samuel  P.  P.,  16 
Fisher,  Lieut.  Lewis,  32 
Fiske,  Isaac,  16 
French,  Jr.,  Lieut  Elisha,  32 

Gardner,  General,  25 
Gardner,  Henry,  16 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  13 
Harding,  Chester,  20 
Harris,  Capt.  Michael,  31 
Higginson,     Thomas     Went- 
worth,  18,  63 

Johonnot,  Major  Oliver,  31 
Kinsley,  Capt.  Adam,  31 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON   THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 



RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  SHp-70m-9,'65(F7151s4)458 


-        T  *J  l-f-  \J  U 


Austin,  W. 

A  forgotten  duel. 


E340 

A87 

A88 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


